Creative Processes and Style

  • Chiu-Shui Chan
Part of the Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics book series (SAPERE, volume 17)


Cognition, as introduced in Chap.  1, is the human intelligence process of organizing personal information through the use of human conscious awareness, visual perception, reasoning, and judgment to accomplish everyday tasks. In design fields, designers apply design cognition to organize design information for creating artifacts. Here, design cognition is the ability to manipulate images, utilize rationale, and create three-dimensional forms to generate a product that serves a function. This ability, usually occurring in the design process, is recognized as a phenomenon and pattern of doing things. For example, as shown in Chap.  5, designers consciously utilize some invariant knowledge, rules, mental images, and certain fixed sequences in design processes; certain constant features are also generated and distinguished as the representation of a style. Therefore, patterns of constant utilization of knowledge in design are described as the phenomena of style coming from cognitive operations, and the cognitive mechanisms applied in design provide the incentive for a style. Similarly, creativity is a phenomenon of cognitive operational results that share similar cognitive driving forces. This chapter explains the connection and correlation between the two phenomena of style and creativity from a cognitive perspective.


Design Intention Mental Image Design Constraint External Representation Design Cognition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anderson JR (1980) Cognitive psychology and its implications. W. H. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  2. Ando T (1984) Tadao Ando: buildings, projects, writings. Rizzoli International, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Ando T (1987) Tadao Ando. GA Architect, 8. ADA Edita, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  4. Austin JR (1997) A cognitive framework for understanding demographic influences in groups. Int J Organ Anal 5:342–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chan CS (1990) Cognitive processes in architectural design problem solving. Des Stud 11(2):60–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan CS (2001) An examination of the forces that generate a style. Des Stud 22(4):319–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chan CS (2008) Design cognition: cognitive science in design. China Architecture & Building Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  8. Cross N (2001) Design cognition: results from protocol and other empirical studies of deign activity. In: Eastman E, McCracken M, Newstetter W (eds) Design knowing and learning: cognition in design education. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 79–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cross N (2011) Design thinking: understanding how designers think and work. Berg, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Duncker K, Lees LS (1945) On problem-solving. Psychol Monogr 58(5):iGoogle Scholar
  11. Eastman C (2001) New directions in design cognition: studies of representation and recall. In: Eastman C, McCracken M, Newsteller W (eds) Design knowing and learning. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 147–198Google Scholar
  12. Furuyama M (1993) Tadao Ando. Artemis Verlags-AG, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  13. Furuyama M (2006) Tadao Ando, *1941: the geometry of human space. Taschen, Hong Kong, pp 7–20Google Scholar
  14. Gardner H (1993) Seven creators of the modern era. In: Brockman J (ed) Creativity. Simon & Schuster, New York, pp 28–47Google Scholar
  15. Geretsegger H, Peintner M (1979) Otto Wagner, 1841–1918, the expanding City, the beginning of modern architecture. Rizzoli, New York, pp 26–31Google Scholar
  16. Guilford JP (1950) Creativity. American Psychologist 5:444–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guilford JP (1988) Some changes in the structure-of-intellect model. Educ Psychol Meas 48:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hayes JR (1989) Cognitive processes in creativity. In: Torrance EP, Glover JA, Ronning RR, Reynolds CR (eds) Handbook of creativity. Plenum Press, New York, pp 135–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hayes JR, Simon HA (1974) Understanding written problem instructions. In: Gregg L (ed) Knowledge and cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 167–200Google Scholar
  20. Isozaki A, Ando T, Fujimori T (2007) The contemporary tea house: Japan’s top architects redefine a tradition. Kodansha International, Tokyo, pp 58–61Google Scholar
  21. Jehn KA, Chadwick C, Thatcher SM (1997) To agree or not to agree: the effects of value congruence, individual demographic, dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup outcomes. Int J Confl Manag 8:287–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaplan C, Simon HA (1990) In search of insight. Cogn Psychol 22:374–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Korf RE (1980) Toward a model of representational changes. Artif Intell 14:41–78CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Kotovsky K, Hayes JR, Simon HA (1985) Why are some problems hard: evidence from Tower of Hanoi. Cogn Psychol 17:248–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Munro T (1967) The morphology of art as a branch of aesthetic. In: Beardsley M, Schueller H (eds) Aesthetic inquiry: essays on art criticism and the philosophy of art. Dickenson Publishing, Belmont, pp 43–53Google Scholar
  26. Nemeth CJ, Nemeth-Brown B (2003) Better than individuals? The potential benefits of dissent and diversity for group creativity. In: Paulus PB, Nijstad BA (eds) Group creativity: innovation through collaboration. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 63–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Newell A (1965) Limitations of the current stock of ideas about problem solving. In: Kent A, Taulbee OE (eds) Electronic information handling. Spartan, Washington, DC, pp 195–208Google Scholar
  28. Pearson C (2009) California academy of science. Archit Rec 2009–01:58–69Google Scholar
  29. Piano R (1989) Renzo Piano: building workshop: 1964–1988. A + U Publishing Co., Tokyo, pp 14–22Google Scholar
  30. Piano R (1998) Renzo Piano: sustainable architectures: arquitecturas sostenibles. Gingko Press, Corte Madera, pp 56–59Google Scholar
  31. Scully VJ (1960) Frank Lloyd wright. George Braziller, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Simon HA, Chase W (1973) Skill in Chess. Am Sci 61:394–403Google Scholar
  33. Simon HA, Hayes JR (1976) The understanding process: problem isomorphs. Cogn Psychol 8:165–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stasser G, Birchmeier Z (2003) Group creativity and collective choice. In: Paulus PB, Nijstad BA (eds) Group creativity: innovation through collaboration. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 85–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wickelgren WA (1974) How to solve problems. Freeman, San FranciscozbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Wright FL (1928) In the cause of architecture. Archit Rec 63:49–57Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chiu-Shui Chan
    • 1
  1. 1.Architecture DepartmentIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations